Strickland says gun rights, limits can co-exist

A former Ohio governor whose career was built with help from the National Rifle Association says it's time to bring gun rights advocates, the entertainment industry and politicians together to reduce violence after the massacre of 26 people at a Connecticut school last week.
Associated Press
Dec 17, 2012

Democrat Ted Strickland spoke Monday after participating in the Ohio Electoral College that delivered Ohio's 18 electoral votes for President Barack Obama.

Strickland said the Second Amendment assuring the right to bear arms should be subject to reasonable limits, as is the case with the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. He said restrictions could be worked out through frank dialogue for the good of the country.

A native of Appalachian eastern Ohio, Strickland said he's weighing a run against Republican Gov. John Kasich in 2014.



Second Opinion

And don't forget the 7 million Ukrainians too, which the liberals refuse to report or teach in schools and on PBS.


All in all around 15 million from the german side and 25-40 million the russin side. The reference of the jews is most do not recognize the others as ever existed.

Swamp Fox

Beware of the politician that wants to "limit constitutional rights" he is the same one who left a $8 billion dollar budget deficient when he left office.


Geez 2nd O-pinion..foam @ the mouth much? My uniform has crossed rifles on each bicep. Just relax.


Several decades ago, many local schools had shooting clubs, the liberals took 'em out. Maybe we need to go in the opposite direction and start teaching students respect for firearms?


Homicide by firearms for blacks is at a far higher rate than for whites. In order to make the U.S. less of a "violent country," why not just confiscate guns from blacks? :p

Let's see Senators Feinstein, Schumer and other big liberals go door-to-door and collect 'em.

"Blacks were about 7 times more likely than whites to be a homicide victim (30 versus 4 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older respectively), and approximately 9 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide committed with a firearm (25 versus 3 per 100,000 persons age 12 or older, respectively)."

Typical liberals; focus on the politically correct and wrong end of the problem.


I hope Ted isn't running for Governor again against Kasich. One of the reasons Ted got elected the first time around is that he had the vote of the large population of gun rights people in Ohio. With his choice to support the Obama mantra of regulating guns he just shot himself in the foot. The fact is that the only thing the politicos are trying to do is reinstate the old assault weapons ban. This ban will do nothing, just like it did in the years it was in effect. The criminals still had their assault weapons, the gang bangers still killed people, and three of the bloodiest years on record occurred during that ban. The only thing bans do is take away from the law abiding. Another fact overlooked is that any assault weapons that are currently in the hands of gun owners will be grandfathered. So if you think they are coming to get my Bushmaster or AR-15, well I got some water front property for sale in the Arizona desert for ya.

looking around

It seems the democrats or libs as many here like to refer to them get all the bashing for wanting to advocate gun control or the responsibility of ownership, so I take it that the only champions of freedom , true Americans, those who maintain their personal arsenal of high tech weapons are the republicans or as we say cons or rightwing nuts? So my question is if your ideology's and overall take on things is so correct, than whats wrong with your kids that they take advantage of free accessibility to your arsenals to reign terror, destruction and death? Could it be that your intolerance , hateful spewing, and general paranoia has rubbed off on your offspring? I'm surprised that most of you aren't hole up in some mountain encampment readying yourselves for your preconceived onslaught to seize your weapons.
Maybe even reworking those Bushmasters lower end and sear to make them function full automatic. Nothing like the smell of gunpowder and hail of lead in the morning....better than Viagra for you guys. Keep your eyes peeled and your finger on the trigger were coming............


Your post only proves how nuts liberals really are. Who really is exhibiting paranoia? I have no reason to be paranoid, I have the means to protect my family. It's called preparation. Even if nothing ever happens, there is nothing wrong with being prepared. All you liberal blissninnys will be the ones pounding on my door if the crap ever hits the fan, because you believed that preparation was akin to lunacy. My parents and siblings subscribe to the same idea, they lack preparation. It's ok though, what they don't know is I've use my own money to buy enough stuff to help them out too. I guess I'm nuts for doing that, huh?

The Big Dog's back

So what are you going to do when that drone is parked overhead?




Still advocating the death of fellow citizens, And you people call the rest of us crazy?


Why do SOME gun advocates always try to reframe the debate? It's tiresome! No one is trying to take your gun, outlaw weapons, or violate the constitution. I am all for gun ownership and honestly the horse is out of the barn at this point so why not focus on how to make things safer? Banning any type of gun is not the answer alone but neither is arming everyone. There's no easy answer but I do think we have to try to do something that can be effective. Doing nothing except watching innocent ppl die is really not an option.


Why is it that Chicago has had some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the country and is now slated to be the murder capital for 2012?

Having lived in Metro Chicago for several decades, I remember when Rev. Jesse Jackson (don't get in his way of a TV camera or he'll knock you down) protested at a gun manufacturer in far away suburban Barrington.

Start working on the correct end of the gun violence problem!

BTW: Chicago also banned the sale of paint in spray cans. Didn't seem to affect the taggers much. Guess that wasn't the "problem."

The Big Dog's back

Ok Ok winnie, we know you're racist. Do you have to invoke a Black person every time to make a point?


@ Dog:

So when do you suppose that the Dimocrats will propose legislation for background checks on current gun owners in the inner city?

Declare your firearms or lose your welfare?

It'll never happen, so I guess that the little black children will just keep gettin' gunned down. Sad.

You Progressives have made a real mess of things.


Gun bans aren't going to stop the criminals and crazies from getting guns. In this case, the guns that the shooter used weren't his, they were his mom's, so it doesn't matter about the background check. I don't think people need the high powered semi-auto guns though. My husband wants an AR-15, just because he thinks it would be neat to own one. But.. he also knows that he would have no purpose for it other than target shooting. Now that we don't own a home anymore, and don't have access to land, he'd have nowhere to shoot it, and now he realizes he doesn't need it. Making something illegal only makes it more coveted. But I do think there has to be some give and take. Something has to be done!
So instead of bitching that this won't work, and argh! my freedom, come up with some ideas and send them to your representatives.


If assault weapons were illegal, I doubt this kid's mother would have had one, and I doubt this kid would have bought one on the black market. Assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction. You would not hunt with one or defend your family with one. Their purpose is to mow down lots of people at once - like a bomb. Banning assault weapons will not likely lower overall crime rates, but its likely it would have prevented this tragedy.

Otis B. Driftwood

Why would people not hunt or defend their family with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle? Is their some reason that gun is not good enough?


I don't know what that means, and I'm not sure what you point is. Sarcasm maybe?


You doubt this and doubt that but you really have no idea!


You're right - I don't. Point taken. However...except for mowing down a large group of people, what purpose does an assault rifle serve? Making those illegal does not infringe upon your right to hunt or your right to protect yourself.


actually the .223 (5.56mm) is an great varmint round. And most of the Bushmaster and other miltary clones would and do make excellant varmint rifles. I can remember as a teenager using my AR-15 to hunt 'chucks' with.


Did you need all 30 rounds to hit that "chuck"?


Sorry to disappoint you buckeye I generally used the 10 rd. magazine. To this day don't own any 30 rd ones. I learned how to hit what I had my sights on young.


A nuclear bomb would probably do the trick as well. Maybe that should be legal.


ever heard the phrase better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. shame you opened your mouth.


What can we do?

During these tumultuous times it seems everyone wants to point a finger at the cause and come up with a single solution. Unfortunately the landscape is far more complex than that. The pro gun advocates will explain why we need more firearms and the anti gun proponents will explain why we need more gun control. Setting those differences aside just for a minute, let us look at a few things that are just plain common sense.

One of the main issues is the media, every time someone does something horrific that makes national news, the media blasts the details of the crime and the name of the individual(s) that caused the issue all over the radio, television and news papers thus making them a celebrity within the individuals own mind. Try this simple test to prove this theory. Name one, just one victim from the Columbine shooting. Now try to remember the name of one of the perpetrators.

Another major flaw is our current justice system. I believe we should look more closely at beefing up the laws that are already in place. Lets replace plea bargains with mandatory non negotiable sentences for crimes that were proven to be committed. Take more of an “eye for an eye” stance. Tighten down the appeals process for criminals who kill.

Now lets look at the weapons issue. Making tougher laws that effect law abiding citizens does nothing. Before the 9/11/01 attacks it would have been illegal to hijack a jet airliner and fly it into a building full of people, yet it happened, It happened because criminals do not care what laws they break, that is why they are criminals in the first place. Making it more difficult to obtain a firearm for law abiding citizens is like making it more difficult for sober people to purchase an automobile. Cocain, heroine, Meth just to name a few have been illegal for years, yet we still have a major drug problem don’t we? This just proves making anything illegal does not stop criminals from getting it. Prisoners can obtain illegal drugs in prison, the very place they are sent for breaking these drug laws in the first place. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma with ammonium nitrate and liquid nitromethane killing 168 people including 19 children, foreigners flew our own aircraft into buildings killing nearly 3000 people in total, in each incident not a single shot was fired. Yet I don’t hear many people calling out to make fertilizer or airplanes illegal. If we were to eliminate all firearms, what will stop people from using other mechanisms from doing these acts of terrorism?

As far as school shootings are concerned, maybe we should look at beefing up basic security.
Possibly making all ground level windows more resistant to projectiles, installing vestibules at entrances where all visitors must be “buzzed in” only after a pre screening with a metal detector. A photo ID, Name of individual you are seeking to talk to and legitimate reason for being there would be mandatory to gain entry. I do not agree 100% with arming teachers, I do however think it may be worth a look into training a few key staff members in the proper use of firearms by a qualified law enforcement firearms facility, then keep a couple firearms in a safe within the confines of the administrative offices only accessible to said qualified personnel.

I understand that all of this would take a bit of time and cost some money, but look at the money that was spent on the airline industry to make it safer.

I believe it is time to start to look for the answers to the problem with the true problem... the criminal.

Otis B. Driftwood

Nancy Lanza had a survivalist philosophy which is why she was stockpiling guns. Nancy was part of the Doomsday Preppers movement. There is no idea what she could have been teaching her kids. So, if you are going to stockpile weapons then it's a good idea to secure those weapons. It is his mothers fault that he got his hands on the guns. If those guns would have been locked up, none of this would have happened.


How do you know they were not locked up? You don't!


I like Strickland. His problem was that he picked a bunch of idiots for advisers. His advisers were the reasons why Strickland lost the election. Strickland is honest and has very good ideas. He needs to distance himself from his past advisers.